Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I thought it would be interesting to see what Ushiro was doing to instill it in others. Whether he taught what was behind the sanchin kata...things like that.
And more interestingly.why....would ikeda be making this "observation" now? Is it ...after feeling Ushiro?
What has brought him to this "Critical time or juncture in AIkido?"
Now that certain people are speaking up about whats missing? That he has actually felt things that are out there? What?

It's a good article. To me, the 2 quotes I'd pick and comment on are
(1.)the one attributed to Ikeda Sensei:

The kind of power through kokyu that Ushiro sensei has been teaching is completely different from what is usually thought of as kokyu. All of the people who came to this camp experienced this. It may have been only an introduction to this kind of practice and this kind of power, but I think it was a real plus for people to be able to experience it.

(2.) this one:

Ushiro shihan has already entered the opponent's center from the moment of contact, causing the opponent to 'float' for an instant. The subsequent throw is an 'after the fact' application. When one tries to throw without the 'float', the intent to throw is transmitted to the opponent, who then becomes tense. From there, the interaction becomes either a contest of strength, or the opponent cooperates by falling or flying to create the technique.

A few days ago I quoted a comment by a White Crane practitioner (in another thread) saying the same thing about the "float", etc. In other words, this is one of the powers of kokyu/ki/jin, whatever. Notice the comment that Ushiro has "entered the opponent's center from the moment of contact" and that any throw, hit, etc., becomes "after the fact"....this is the essence of the higher-levels of martial arts and "aiki".

But if these kinds of kokyu skills are the essence, we need to look back at Ikeda Sensei's statement and decide what he was talking about, because it's not clear. I think Ikeda is saying that the kokyu that Ushiro Sensei is teaching is valid kokyu (or else Ikeda wouldn't be wasting his time, ne?) and that the stuff usually "thought of as kokyu" in Aikido is wrong.

In other words, Ikeda Sensei is saying that the current ideas/guesses about kokyu power are wrong; he is not saying that Ushiro's version of Kokyu doesn't quite fit the accepted definition.

Just to add an opinion, I think it should be noted that the kokyu/jin skills will vary from person-to-person and probably the best thing to do would be to study the films of Ueshiba and other top students, copying their usage of kokyu.

The essence of kokyu-power is the jin skills, but the full kokyu is going to contain the ki/fascia/pressure skills (Ushiro combines all of those things, in the manner he does them, in his Sanchin form). However, some people have kokyu skills that contain a lot of muscle content; some people have well-connected bodies and don't use much muscle; some people rely on the vertical structural connection and use muscle or don't use muscle; some people know how to coordinate the kokyu-power so that it is fully controlled by the dantien.... and so on. In other words, just "learning kokyu power" is more like a start and a host of 'workable' ways open up, once the foot is in the door. Great care has to be made in the decisions of how someone approaches these skills. O-Sensei didn't develop in a year.

The kind of power through kokyu that Ushiro sensei has been teaching is completely different from what is usually thought of as kokyu. ... The circular movement of aikido at first glance appears to be soft, but the fact is, that there is still a collision of forces, and anyone who has practiced has felt this collision.
By seeing and experiencing Ushiro shihan's nullifying "zero power" techniques and feeling zero-power in their own techniques when Ushiro shihan extended his ki ... ... Our challenge, then, is to take this inspiration and turn it into action. Isn't this the start of true shugyo (training)?[/i][/b]

Which is to say that there is a lot of BAAAD kokyu practice out there, a point I fervently agree with. Yes. Fine. What to do about it? One cannot rip and burn Ushiro Sensei's ki for general distribution. We need a more generally applicable condensation of this that can be interpreted properly, and consistently. In other words -- omote.

That is the reason for my approach from my own mechnical background (rotary and vibrational mechanics) to follow the physical intutiions that I have developed in my kokyu practice. It may not be as good or as consistent as some may have developed -- but I know what I am looking for when I feel it, and I can see it in others when it occurs, and it is very much what the article talks about. I am finding concrete (omote) ways of interpreting and communicating it

The following is also from the same article:

Quote:

Aikido Journal wrote:

Using ki, you can enter into the opponent's center instantly, directing them at will through the hips and knees. In the case of throws, too, it is not an external rotation that breaks the partner's balance, but an internal one. Because it is applied internally, the opponent cannot feel it.

There are two key points made here that I have written about elsewhere in this forum and which I am continuing to work out with greater rigor from an omote physical perspective:

1) gyrodynamics and the relationship of precession to O-Sensei's specific description of the art as "jujido" and

2) using sensation of the gyroscopic internal rotation/vibration of joints according to the principles of virtual work (ie. -- zero-motion).

Mike and others have (well, "derided" is a polite term) my thoughts on these issues -- but the idea of "six-direction springs" is a quintessential model of linear resistance (albeit in three axes) that Ushiro Sensei is very definitely NOT using. Whatever the usefulness of "six-directions" as a visualization tool or for other purposes, it is also and for that reason, most definitely NOT what Ikeda and Ushiro are speaking about and the participants have reported.

Juji presumes that interaction of forces occurs at 90 degree angles -- there is never any component of oppositional force if true juji is maintained. All forces developed by the human body rely on internal joint rotaiton and vibraiton (tone) to function. Even "explosive Okinawan punches" (as discussed in that article) involve necessary internal joint rotations, they are not immune to this approach at all.

That is also why I was intrigued by Master Yao's discussion of vibrations in the joints as a critical aspect of yiquan. Tone in a joint is a function of constant background neuro-muscular "buzz" of that joint's oppositional muscle groups oscilalting against one another. Vibration and rotation are equivalent for gyrodynamic purposes.
A gyro rate sensor can be made on the basis of either form of internal motion, to sense essentially infinitesimal induced precessions by an input force.

I interpret ikkyo (the first principle of aiki) as:

1) a spiraling chain of these physical joint precessions,

2) led by the "ki sense" (in this setting) disclosing by a complementary "virtual work" sensation of precession arising in each of the joints from the instant of connection (musubi) with the opponent's structure -- betraying its state and thus where the attack is prepared to go.

The first is seen (omote) -- the second is hidden (ura).

The overemphasis on omote in aiki practice ( a western prejudice, perhaps) has caused this, but it is also that same omote that has revealed the ura (hidden) problem. There is necessity, as in all things, for both an ura and omote approach, as there is necessity for balance in the binary vibrational tone of the joints

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

I realize it is just a repeat of much that has been said on these boards over the years.

This is what I am trying to depart from. Ikeda and Ushiro are following ura waza (exploring the hidden) in dealing with these issues, and understandably so. Ura is a preferential response of Japanese culture. (not that there is anything wrong with that). But the problem has in part been created from the similiar omote preference of the West. I could be wrong, but I do not think that tendency is going to change any sooner than the ura preference of the Japanese. So, the remedy for us must also partake of something of the same thing as the disease -- the omote approach of the West. I am attempting that from my perspective. So are David, Ledyard Sensei and others.

There is no substitute for the necessary awareness, I agree. For practice purposes, this awareness classically progresses from seated kokyu tanden ho through kihon waza and on through full jiyu or randori application.

This, Dan, in an isometric form, is what I am seeing in the solo and partner practice as you you describe it. It is that similar isometric form that I interpret to operate in Shioda's heavy emphasis on kihon dosa. It is what I see in Akuzawa's demonstrations in a completely different sensiblity.

It is very much what I feel and work for in partnered kokyu tanden ho, techniques and jiyu waza.

.....................................
1) gyrodynamics and the relationship of precession to O-Sensei's specific description of the art as "jujido" and

2) using sensation of the gyroscopic internal rotation/vibration of joints according to the principles of virtual work (ie. -- zero-motion).

Mike and others have (well, "derided" is a polite term) my thoughts on these issues -- but the idea of "six-direction springs" is a quintessential model of linear resistance (albeit in three axes) that Ushiro Sensei is very definitely NOT using. Whatever the usefulness of "six-directions" as a visualization tool or for other purposes, it is also and for that reason, most definitely NOT what Ikeda and Ushiro are speaking about and the participants have reported....

Don't get me wrong, Erick. I don't "deride" your abstruse theory. In fact I sort of think of your theory as being somewhat akin to "the Peace of God" ..... it passeth all understanding.

On a realistic level, you have to admit that your theory sort of stands alone. The next substantive step would be to have you meet up with some people who know what ki/jin/kokyu is do a "show-and-tell". As I've mentioned before, I think that just for openers, any Aikido teacher should be able to offhand demonstrate the few "ki tests" that Tohei shows in some of his instructional books. Those tests are not indicative of just the things Tohei did... O-Sensei did a lot of them, too.

Basic "ki test" skills are like the ante to get into the poker game. The nice thing being that if you can really do them (and not fake a few of them), there's only one right way the human body can do them... suddenly you have a common level of understanding among a number of fellow enthusiasts and *then* you can start using your meta-theory.

I am not sure that the acknowledgment of one things as valid makes another thing wrong.

Then it's possible that Ikeda and others bringing up this subject, saying that it's a critical time, etc., are simply wrong? It sounds to me like you're suggesting that although we might concede that 2+2=4 is valid, that doesn't mean that 2+2=5 is necessarily wrong.

Not to usurp Dan Harden's discussion of this article on AJ, but it rates a thread of its own.

Oh well, When you're right you're right.I should have opened it up as a thread.

There are a some interesting questions that could be asked regarding his various statements. I wonder how many will be asked by those -in- Aikido.

From the other thread.

For myself this comment from Ikeda was the most encouraging
"For ourselves and for the Aikido of the future, it is necessary to completely change the way aikido is practiced. I think we have come to this critical crossroads."
I have observed and have been saying for years that Aikido is going "full speed in the wrong direction." That for the most part it's intent- was backward. And for that reason it wasn't:
a. soft
b. internal.
It would be facinating to have heard the behind the door discusion that led him to the same conclusion some of us reached years ago. We have to completely change the way Aikido is practiced.

And more interesting then all of this is.....
1. Why....would Ikeda be making this "observation" now?
2. Is it ...after feeling Ushiro?
3. What has brought him to this "Critical time or crossroads in AIkido?" What prompted this statement by him?
4. Is it now that certain people are speaking up about whats missing?
5. That he has actually felt things that are out there?
What?
I don't think a single question will be answered. Like all the rest of the threads the answers won't come from Aikido. Mark Murrays reply to me may be correct. That the statis quo will be maintained
quote What gets me the most -- That all this "stuff" is being mentioned by people *outside* of Aikido. You, Mike, Rob, Ellis, and Ushiro. Hopefully, Ikeda will be able to help shape a new direction.
Otherwise, we'll just get the same old "That stuff ain't Aikido" rhetoric.

Which goes to the heart of the matter.Will it be a great time for Aikido to go back to its founding? Or just be more of the same?
Deny, dismiss, and.....tenkan.

I knew Ikeda had to be special just from his Systema try out. Another guy who knows that none of us has all the anwers.
Cheers
Dan

Having had the great privilege of training with both Ikeda and Ushiro Sensei, I am not sure that the acknowledgment of one things as valid makes another thing wrong.

I do agree there Aikido needs to be a greater emphasis on Kokyu and a better means of communicating it. I certainly felt it from both of these instructors.

What I don't completely understand, then, is from this part of Ikeda's quote:

Quote:

Ikeda sensei wrote:

"The kind of power through kokyu that Ushiro sensei has been teaching is completely different from what is usually thought of as kokyu. All of the people who came to this camp experienced this. It may have been only an introduction to this kind of practice and this kind of power, but I think it was a real plus for people to be able to experience it.

As a teacher, one of the most important considerations is how we are bringing up new people in the art, both now and into the future. There will be no growth if we just repeat what is currently being done. For ourselves and for the Aikido of the future, it is necessary to completely change the way aikido is practiced. I think we have come to this critical crossroads."

If what we, in Aikido, are doing isn't wrong, then why the emphasis on "necessary to completely change"? If it's just a matter of explaining kokyu better, that wouldn't create a necessity for complete change, would it?

As I've mentioned before, I think that just for openers, any Aikido teacher should be able to offhand demonstrate the few "ki tests" that Tohei shows in some of his instructional books. Those tests are not indicative of just the things Tohei did... O-Sensei did a lot of them, too.

Basic "ki test" skills are like the ante to get into the poker game.

I feel like I need to modify this statement somehow. Some "ki tests" like the "unbendable arm", "can't pull the fingers apart", and so on aren't really definitive because they can be duplicated closely enough with wrong mechanics that it makes their validity questionable. Besides, some "ki tests" are ones that get better the more you train them, whereas they wouldn't necessarily be part of your everyday training in Aikido... so what some of those ki tests shows is open to question.

Another problem with my statement comes when I remember how many people I have met who can do, for instance, good "rooting" (such as Tohei does in various stances), yet they lose their basic power and any semblance of "move from the hara", the moment they try it with dynamic demonstrations.

The essence of what I'm saying, I'd stick too.... an Aikido "teacher" should be able to comfortably exhibit most "ki tests". In addition, it should be possible to "feel the ground" or "feel the weight" throughout every increment of any technique or taiso.

And more interesting then all of this is.....
1. Why....would Ikeda be making this "observation" now?
2. Is it ...after feeling Ushiro?

Hi Dan,
Ikeda sensei made the statement at Camp last year that "Of course Saotome Sensei has been doing this all along... it's just that we were too thick to get it." I think what has people so excited about Ushiro Sensei, Ikeda Sensei included, is that he has a very clear and systematic way of talking about the various principles which combine to create technique using "aiki".

Saotome Sensei learned from O-Sensei (and others of course) and he stated that he could remeber only three times in 15 years that O-Sensei actually explained something technical. So Saotome Sensei picked this stuff up by feeling it. He is something of an intuitive genius in this area I think. But that method will not work for many of us. Ushiro Sensei breaks elements down that Saotome Sensei simply does, often without really being aware of it as discreet principles. I believe that this is precisely why many folks have been helped by training with Ushiro Sensei.

I absolutely agree that Aikido needs to be taught completely differently than it is currently being taught. I think thet principles need to be identified and broken down for people in a way that they are not currently. Training with Angier Sensei over the years made that abundantly clear to me and I have modeled my own teaching methodology on the insights I got from training with him and other teacher like William Gleason Sensei and Tom Read Sensei who also teach in a Principle based fashion.

Don't get me wrong, Erick. I don't "deride" your abstruse theory. In fact I sort of think of your theory as being somewhat akin to "the Peace of God" ..... it passeth all understanding.

Well, then ...since we're done with derision and all ... The Peace of God is all around you, and it needs no understanding, only acceptance.

By all means let's move on to things that are not abstruse ... you know -- like kokyu, ki and jin ...

All of this is subtle. Sheesh.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

On a realistic level, you have to admit that your theory sort of stands alone.

Actually, judging from what Ushiro Sensei actually said about the critical involvement of internal rotation, I'd say I look to be headed roughly the right way from the perspective of Western mechanics in looking closely at gyrational dynamics. I am hardly the best M.E., and certianly not the best aikidoka, but I am a guy with some knowledge of both straddling the border here at the moment.

You do what you like -- I'll carry on with what's at hand in my pathetic little excuse for a world-view, which sadly unlike yours, has so few real sophisticates that actually share it with me ... So many more will surely be drawn to the art and seek to develop in it by their innate and native grasp of jin, kokyu and ki ... Do carry on.

It would be laughable, were it not so sad and contradictory, for the advocates of exploring alternatives to squelch exploration because it is "not well-understood, or well-accepted." Well, isn't that sort of the point?? Can we not admit that there are multiple, legitimate perspectives? Each has its own traditions and systems of nomenclature (and resulting gaps of ignorance) that need to be explored so as to both inform and to be informed.

Ikeda Sensei certainly realizes and advocates this. His stated concern is about losing the all too prevalent "collision of forces" by expanding the range of practice that is understood in terms of kokyu. Ushiro presents some opportunities to cure that acknowledged problem in the kokyu practice that is poorly done.

Quote:

Aikido Journal (Ikeda) wrote:

For ourselves and for the Aikido of the future, it is necessary to completely change the way aikido is practiced. I think we have come to this critical crossroads.

Like anyone scholed in Japanese language, Ikeda said precisely what allows anyone who reads it to take away from it exactly what they want.

I can read this to say that kihon and kata must be abandoned, because they stultify the sensitivity and elmination of "collision" that lead to the development of takemusu aiki - which is the spontaneous creation of techniques, not merely performance of predefined interactions or "clever monkey" tricks (which is the level of kokyu practice in many settings, and which Mike legitimately criticizes, BTW). Takemusu aiki could be roughly described as willingess to "completely change" at a moment's notice.

Dan, Mike and others may read it to mean that "aikido is all wet, abandon it as quick as possible, you poor dupes." That would be what they choose to read, from their admitted prejudgment.

It is not what was said, on either reading.

He said nothing, Dan's questions notwithstanding, that kokyu as it is taught is wrong per se, merely that is incomplete and very often poorly done. He said nothing, nor did Ushiro Sensei claim, that Ushiro's kokyu practice is complete or without flaw, even while his training presents a new perspective. The example should provoke the willingness to explore for aiki where we find it, with beginner's mind, and not merely continue looking where we are simply because "the light is better." This is Ikeda's point, in both this interaction and in the Systema event.

There is nothing without strength, and nothing without vulnerability, and very often they may be one and the same thing.

Aiki is about making vulnerability itself a strength. No force, no resistance, no conflict. How we understand this and communicate it needs to be fitted to the circumstances, as much as the techniques to the attacks.

Actually, judging from what Ushiro Sensei actually said about the critical involvement of internal rotation, I'd say I look to be headed roughly the right way from the perspective of Western mechanics in looking closely at gyrational dynamics.

Hmmmmm. I know what he meant. So do a lot of people. It's probably closer to a force-couple than a true rotation, Erick, even though "rotation" is the more commonly used term. The point is, if you really understood these things, we wouldn't be sparring over terms like this. The reason I can read Rob's comments, Akuzawa's methods, Dan's descriptions, etc., and comfortably know what they're talking about is that there's really only a few basic principles. At best, you're attempting to fit those principles into an explication (not really a true theory) involving "gryational dynamics".

Quote:

It would be laughable, were it not so sad and contradictory, for the advocates of exploring alternatives to squelch exploration because it is "not well-understood, or well-accepted." Well, isn't that sort of the point?? Can we not admit that there are multiple, legitimate perspectives?

Erick, if we were talking about some sophisticated analysis of some of the cute offshoot tricks to these skills, I'd be open to "multiple, legitimate perspectives". But we're not. We're talking about root basics and you have a theory that you love... while tellingly don't understand the common conversation. Do it your way. That's your business. The only problem would come, as I mentioned, if you're teaching this unusual and obscure meta-theory as the 'truth' to beginners. But that's your business, too, I guess.

Hmmmmm. I know what he meant. So do a lot of people. It's probably closer to a force-couple than a true rotation, Erick, even though "rotation" is the more commonly used term.

If you really think that there is distinction between a force couple and "rotation" on a question of virtual work, then yes, you are right, we have nothing to talk about. I'll prefer to give Ushiro Sensei credit for knowing what he was saying.

Ledyard Sensei has demonstrated some of what he taken from Ushiro to me in seminar. I am buy no means speaking out of school here. I was struck by two things in that experience --

1) He was counselling to avoid doing what I try to get my students to avoid ("force" "collision", etc.), and counselling to work on unifying the body as a whole, which I also I try to get my students to do.

That in itself, confirms me that my line of thought on these topics is very much in concert with the "common conversation," even if I am trying to transalte thes ideas into a western framework.

2) He was catching me doing the same category of things in a far sublter manner as I try to get my students to avoid, showing that Ikeda has a powerful point about continual improvement and exploration, which I am the first to acknowledge as a necessity.

The only reason I can catch my students doing these things is that I recognized them first as mistaeks I have also made along the way.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

... if we were talking about some sophisticated analysis of some of the cute offshoot tricks to these skills, I'd be open to "multiple, legitimate perspectives". But we're not. We're talking about root basics and you have a theory that you love... while tellingly don't understand the common conversation.

Fine. Quit carping about the irrelvancy of my little adventure, and explain "the basics" in purely mechanical terms ... That is my purpose. I welcome any input in those terms.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

... if you're teaching this unusual and obscure meta-theory as the 'truth' to beginners. But that's your business, too, I guess.

I know my responsibilities and the limits of my authority. They do not include a surrender of my critical or observational faculties. There are several large bars full of helicopter pilots, aeronatucial engineers, and a few more roboticists thrown, that would find the idea of gyrodynamics, as an "unusual and obscure meta-theory" rather quaint. You should let your lighting fast judgment take a rest -- it is overtaxed and serious outrunning what has actually been said in this forum.

Please enlighten why my analysis of the mechanics from a gyrational perspective, is wrong and yours, which I would love to hear, is in fact correct.

Why the antagonism? I am hardly wedded to these particular expressions of the concepts, but no one is proposing a better aproach from a mechanical standpoint that I have seen.

Everytime I am challenged so far with new issues to address, I find that there is yet further evidence in the challenge itself to confirm me in continuing the approach with these mechanical concepts, as in Ushiro's recntly revealed statement on rotation, and the yiquan discussion (by the current Master) on the vibratory nature of jin in the joints.

If it is not disproven, and there is some evidecne for it then it is admissible as theory in any scientific sense. I very much welcome such challenges on this point, BTW, from any who care to prove a mechnical point or observation flat wrong. That's how knowledge advances

I am open. Give me yours if you prefer ...

Please do not bother to respond if it is again merely ringing changes on the theme of :: "I know -- you don't. Shut up and quit bothering us." I'll keep taking ukemi until you knock me down.

The subjective component of enabling mechanical control is not my question, the objective mechanics of the manipulation is. IN Western terms you cannot understand the requirements of the control system, until you know the mehcanics of the force system. I understand that Chinese thought does not make this distinction, (or at least not in this way). But it is the proper order of anaylsis for Western knowledge . You claim to be in position to know; please explain in those terms.

But trying to vet Ushiro's or Ikeda's statements for what they "really" meant, instead of what they said, is semantics -- not reasoned argument.

If you really think that there is distinction between a force couple and "rotation" on a question of virtual work, then yes, you are right, we have nothing to talk about. I'll prefer to give Ushiro Sensei credit for knowing what he was saying.

Except, that's not at all what I said, is it?

Quote:

Ledyard Sensei has demonstrated some of what he taken from Ushiro to me in seminar. I am buy no means speaking out of school here.

Are you offering George Ledyard as someone who is skilled in kokyu/ki things, then? Previously you made no mention of him in that position.

Quote:

Fine. Quit carping about the irrelvancy of my little adventure, and explain "the basics" in purely mechanical terms ...

I already have. A number of times, with a number of approaches. I have discussed "paths" and "groundpaths" and explained the difference between 'jin' and 'li' and I have submitted diagrams and I have explained that forces are used from 2 main sources: the ground and the gravity. And so on. I think you're waiting in the bushes simply to hear anything that sounds like "rotation" and if you don't hear what you want to hear, you simply don't hear.

Quote:

There are several large bars full of helicopter pilots, aeronatucial engineers, and a few more roboticists thrown, that would find the idea of gyrodynamics, as an "unusual and obscure meta-theory" rather quaint.

So why do you say that? Anyone can check and see that the reference was to the idea that AIKIDO was explainable by gyrodynamics, not a question of gyrodynamics itself. Are you completely wandering away from what was said and making it up, now?

Quote:

Why the antagonism? I am hardly wedded to these particular expressions of the concepts, but no one is proposing a better aproach from a mechanical standpoint that I have seen.

??? You may have missed a few posts, then.

Quote:

Everytime I am challenged so far with new issues to address, I find that there is yet further evidence in the challenge itself to confirm me in continuing the approach with these mechanical concepts, as in Ushiro's recntly revealed statement on rotation, and the yiquan discussion (by the current Master) on the vibratory nature of jin in the joints.

I think you only hear what you want to hear, Erick. The "vibratory" nature of jin in the joints? By "the current master"??? A common mistranslation of a shaking release comes out "vibration", Erick. It's where the "vibrating palm" idea got started. I.e., the translator didn't understand the "shaking" idea because he had no clue... and "vibrating palm" became a ghost-story of the CMA's. There is no "current master", Erick. There are various schools of Yiquan, each claiming to be better than the others.

As I have previously suggested, I think you need to visit someone... for instance, Akuzawa.... and do a little hands-on.

I have discussed "paths" and "groundpaths" and explained the difference between 'jin' and 'li' and I have submitted diagrams and I have explained that forces are used from 2 main sources: the ground and the gravity. And so on.

Some time ago in another thread you alluded also to your opus on these points but did not deign to respond where, in your 1500-odd posts, you provided this, or to bother again to elaborate it for me. One wonders why you keep replying, or studying, if you are unwilling to trouble to explain it again.

It seems to me that I end up explaining things, again and again, in the same way and in numerous variations in almost every class, but I have not tired of it so far. I learn a little more every time I try.

Here. This excerpt from an interview with Minoru Inaba contains some very important pointers. I've posted it maybe 3 times already:

Power focused here is defensive power; power going out is offensive power.

How can you put forth offensive power? The first thing you have to do is to focus the power in your center. Offensive power will naturally flow if you focus your power in the center. That is forceful power (iryoku). It is a condition of focused energy that becomes center energy. In budo, people use the terms "bui" or "iryoku", don't they? Most important in martial arts is "iwoharu," showing this powerfully focused energy. It's not good to pretend that you have energy (karaibari). Try to use the energy in the lower abdomen. You can call this energy focused "ki" energy. If you don't have center energy, you are bluffing. Really, you have to develop this energy. The energy will flow naturally if you can focus it in the lower abdomen. If you understand this point, you will understand how to develop your body and mind and how you should train.

If you forget this essential point, you'll think only about winning, and you won't have the power to keep centered. This power won't be released and you will be destroyed.

You do exercises to straighten up your back muscles and relax your shoulders. Drop your focus to your lower abdomen. If you do that, you'll find your center point and you will produce center energy. If your center is not developed, you won't have ki energy available to project through your fingers.

If you take excess energy from the upper body and train the lower body as in sumo wrestling, and if you train the energy of the lower abdomen, you will develop your center energy. You use that power wherever necessary.

Even though you focus the energy in your lower abdomen, you will not be able to move the energy to the area where you need it right away. You have to think about how you are going to move it. You have to think about two things, gathering and filling up the power, and then moving the power to where the opponent will attack. Also if you have a weapon, you have to project energy through the weapon. If you understand this point, you'll know how to train and what you need to develop. At the same moment you meet your opponent, you focus on your abdomen (hara) and project your ki where you need it. The result will be that you will shut down your opponent's power. I understand that as the power of "aiki."

Go back and look at the discussion article and the point about "floating" your opponent at the moment of touch. Look at Chris Moses' comments about the basic jin demo's he saw at Akuzawa's. They're manipulating "paths" of forces with their minds, Erick. You can do it; anyone can do it. To make it a global skill in your body takes time. If you want to manipulate it and have "power releases", then maybe we can discuss some surprising rotational aspects. If you want to really "move with your hara", some of it can be explained in terms of rotational dynamics, but it would be a needless exercise in sophistry.

I think you only hear what you want to hear, Erick. The "vibratory" nature of jin in the joints? By "the current master"??? A common mistranslation of a shaking release comes out "vibration", Erick. It's where the "vibrating palm" idea got started. I.e., the translator didn't understand the "shaking" idea because he had no clue... and "vibrating palm" became a ghost-story of the CMA's. There is no "current master", Erick. There are various schools of Yiquan, each claiming to be better than the others.

Dachengquan, which you well know, because Tim Fong pointed me to Wang Xiangzhai in the course of the earlier discussion, which you responded to. Belittling semantics again in place of substantive response.

The webpage is that of Yao Chegguang one of two sons of Yao Zongxun, who studied under Wang Xiangzhai.

I don't vouch for it, but vibratory oscillation is plainly what it describes. Descriptively. In some detail. Unequivocally.

The information is evidently translated by a native Chinese speaker, presumably edited before being published so I do not think the error of a native English translator you presume is there at all.

Quote:

Yao Chenguang wrote:

Q: While in zhanzhuang, there are slight vibration all over the body, is it the natural or intentional reaction?

A: The slight vibration (squirm) all over the body in zhanzhuang is changing from natural to artificial effect. While in standing post (especially in pingbu zhuang, with separated feet and heels in a line), you can feel the slight vibration in calves, and then in thighs, waist, belly, chest and other places. If not control the vibration, it will develop to larger extent and influence the whole body, heels even lift and fall down to knock the ground. Even though the vibrating for dozes of minutes, you will not feel tired; on the contrary, you are really relaxed. When this phenomenon lasts for over ten days, you can practice "fu'an fa" in Yang Sheng Zhuang. Imagine you are standing erect in water and the hands are holding a wood board down below. If you have buoyant feeling in body when pressing the board, you can stop pressing it, but while the body seems to sink, you should resume pressing act. Until the buoyant and sink feeling are totally controlled by mind, you can control the strong vibration to the extent that others cannot notice it from outside. However, the muscles inside the body keep vibrating. The smaller the act is, the quicker the frequency becomes. We can quote the saying of boxing predecessor here: "Big vibration is inferior to small one, and small one is still inferior to stillness. The vibration of stillness is just the unceasing act". In practice, you should check if there are motionless or slowly vibrating muscles. If so, you can guide them with mind and they will definitely vibrate in longer period.

OK, I see the context. In which case I withdraw my comment about vibration and shaking... which, although true, is not what you're talking about in this case.

In this case, the "vibration", to cut to the chase, has to do with the famed "six-directions", Erick, and the strange "tension" effects on the fascial wrappings and the fascia through the muscles. But that is well outside of this conversation. The point is that your reading of "vibrations" as supporting your "gyrational motion" is still wrong.

In terms of the Yao family and Wang's daughter... they have one organization. There are other teachers and organizations. Let me see if it adds anything to curtail your diversion into Yiquan by telling you that I have been aware of yiquan and am on forums with yiquan practitioners... and have been for some time.

If you want to take the general training format of Yiquan as something to examine, I'd be happy to do it. I've recommended the *general approach* for a number of years. The general approach though, contains nothing that I haven't now heard of in various aspects of Aikido.

Here. This excerpt from an interview with Minoru Inaba contains some very important pointers. I've posted it maybe 3 times already:

Thank you, very much.

I'll consider it and comment on the points made.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

Go back and look at the discussion article and the point about "floating" your opponent at the moment of touch.

I know. I can DO that in kokyu tanden ho, tenchinage, shionage, and so on -- just not nearly as consistently yet as I might like, hence the motivation to explore these issues so intently by other means ... You may be free to wander the country at need for seminars -- some of us are not.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

They're manipulating "paths" of forces with their minds, Erick. You can do it; anyone can do it. To make it a global skill in your body takes time. If you want to manipulate it and have "power releases", then maybe we can discuss some surprising rotational aspects. If you want to really "move with your hara", some of it can be explained in terms of rotational dynamics, but it would be a needless exercise in sophistry.

What you deem sophistry I deem useful translation from one conceptual system to another. I do not expect that a mechanical description of affairs results in one-weekend aiki wonders -- far from it. I am not trying to supplant one body of knowledge with another, or toestablish some ridiculous iodea of heirarchy between them, one way or the other, but to augment both of them with better descriptive power, if not some suggestive training possibilities.

As you may have guessed by now, it ain't always appreciated -- for some reason.

I'll consider it and comment on the points made.
I know. I can DO that in kokyu tanden ho, tenchinage, shionage, and so on -- just not nearly as consistently yet as I might like,

You know... Erick... you took at shot at me below about "seminars". You may not realize it, but I only do seminars IF I feel like them. And only on a whimsical basis. I don't teach. You do. You don't know what you're talking about and that's in regard to basics. If I were you, from now on I wouldn't mention George Ledyard or Dennis Hooker or whomever... you need to stop the personal stuff and start thinking. Perhaps what you "DO" in "kokyu tanden ho, tenchinage, shihonage", etc., is simply wrong. It sounds like it is, to me. You need to do more than "consider" Inaba's remarks... you need to cut back and go into think and research mode. And you need to think about the welfare of the people that you're "teaching".

Quote:

hence the motivation to explore these issues so intently by other means ... You may be free to wander the country at need for seminars -- some of us are not.

You may get some admiration because you wear a hakama, Erick, but the personal shots are fairly absurd. And hey... if you think a "teacher" who obviously doesn't understand kokyu-power going to move me with personal opinion, you need to re-read my remarks about the "existing hierarchy". I don't care.

Thanks to Mike for pointing me to Minoru Inaba's interview on Aikido Journal.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about and that's in regard to basics. If I were you, from now on I wouldn't mention George Ledyard or Dennis Hooker or whomever... you need to stop the personal stuff and start thinking.

Who got personal? You started the ad hominem nonsense, I just blended.

I take nothing personally, but I am a big boy and argue for a living. I just despise with living passion poorly drawn and fallacious arguments -- probably only slightly more than I hate sloppy aikido.

Mike, you are remarkably presumptuous. Which I mean as no insult. You just presume way too much. Ya don't know me, ya don't know what I teach (which I have been fairly clear about in comparison to the limits of this topic of discussion). Ya certainly don't know nothing about mechanics, or you might have said something about it in your own words by now, and risked having to stand behind it and back it up, instead of substituting ridiculous insult for useful discussion.

I have not tried to derail your discussion with others in its own terms, I am simply looking for engagement on the issues to inform my own research. If you don't want to engage me don't respond, but if you do, you should know what to expect -- pretty much whatever you offer in kind.

I decline the invitation for further verbal repartee, as the hour is late, my belly full and the whisky glass a good deal lower than it was.

I invite any more useful discussion on applicable mechanics of natrual movement, kokyu, jin or otherwise.

Unfortunately, Inaba Sensei's interview, while very valuable in its own terms, had little to address the issues of mechanics in aikido, either in the quoted language or in other parts.

It did however, have this:

Quote:

Minoru Inaba, Aikido Journal #120 wrote:

In the battle of life you have to find your own way and you have to make your own technique for practicing your "do." That's why you study the martial techniques we have now and in the process you will also learn budo. If you learn the forms of the martial techniques we have now and this causes you to lose your independence and creativity, then your priorities are mixed up. The culture will not develop. Actually, when you are blazing your own trail you need to create new martial techniques--you need new methods. As you search for the meaning of budo, your ability to create techniques will be born.

Therein lies the creativity of budo and bujutsu.

This is usually how the search for the way begins in daily practice. But to search for the way and try to put it into practice, you need to
create new techniques. Thus there is a correlation between "do" and
"jutsu". The connection becomes deeper and will grow.

I'll resume my own struggle without prejudice to any others, and accept the authority of those over me. Hooker Sensei can tell me what to teach and what to quit teaching if I stray from what I have learned from him and his students. I'll keep learning what I can from any training partner I find, Mike -- even you.

I continue in my effort and will raise issues as they seem appropriate, and accept any correction on substantive grounds that any person may have to make.